Well, yes, I understand that, and (of course) I welcome anyone who can read. I was just getting slightly tired of professionals who would read my stuff and use it (and, believe it or not, would call me to discuss it.)
Trust me, getting calls from hedge fund analysts is an eye-opener.
I have no problem giving you and Propitiousaugury (or, in fact, a number of other people,) free access to the posting, one just have to ask (yes, I realize that you don't need it because you know how to read and you also know what to read, but I wanted to point it out anyways.)
Anyway, have a nice day.
P.S. I admire that you can read and, just as importantly, that you know what to read - these are truly rare skills.
And, yes, there are people out there who are willing to pay (and, in fact, in line with the experimental nature of the blog, the access is now charged for on an increasing scale.)
P.S. Along the line of settle-down, there really is no reason to call or email the CEO at this point. Given the panic on this board, I am sure he is fielding massive amount of calls from the institutional investors (who, don't forget, holds something like 40% of the float.) His phone lines are burning down, I am sure.
Of course, as you know, I think you have the right to call. I am just saying that I don't doubt that the CEO has been hearing a lot about this already.
Rule 5260 is a Nasdaq rule and the letter is directed to Nasdaq, I believe, so, not, I don't think you will find anything on SEC's Edgar site.
You could (perhaps) argue that the plan is material information and, so, should be disclosed, but I think that you would be facing an uphill battle.
You can find the rules by way of the Nasdaq site.
Well, over time the per share price of MNDO has certainly, again and again, followed the larger political trends, including the non-event around the Turkey/Israel diplomatic crisis.
Well, you can argue that, of course, but it would probably run into a $425 per hour lawyer who would love nothing more than run the meter on this one.
I don't know what the plan will be - except that it would have to be to submit the 10Qs before the deadline. Moreover, what I have found over time is that the letters to Nasdaq and the SEC are meaningless cookie-cutter letters, rich in legalese and poor in content by design, so, personally, I don't really long to read these.
No need for brilliant insight at this time. The brilliant insight was at $11 when everyone was down on this.
Given the equity distribution, the smart money is probably on holding on, but you have to have a long time-horizon and be able to withstand a lot of volatility related to the volume.
The real issue is that $25 would have been OK two years ago, but with the last two years developments anything below $35 is a bargain.
Yet another great posting. Bravo! Not quite up to your earlier postings in terms of slander and ignorance, but I guess after one year of yelling, you are growing a bit hoarse.
Oh, before I forget. Yes, your goal is exactly to spread panic, so, please, spear us the game-play.
Good stuff as usual.
You wrote: "Revenues have increased from about $60m to C13 consensus of $110m over the past 5 yrs. Market cap has stayed basically flat. Why this disconnect? nonGAAP per share was $0.41 in C09 and is projected to be $0.11 this year."
I believe that the recent blip(s) should be ignored in answering your question -- a safe thing to do, I think, since your question is fundamentally one of a +5 year systemic issue.
Taking the blip(s) out, the first (and primary) issue that I see is the consistent annual dilution, which has been troubling for a while and has effectively cancelled out the resulting GAAP gains over the period. This lead me to the second issue, which -- in my opinion -- is that the nonGAAP versus GAAP classification is a construct.
Simply put, the classification primarily obfuscates the dilution (I don't have the exact number numbers, but I think (from memory) that the the GAAP EPS, exclusive of extraordinary items and on a diluted share basis, have been swinging from 0.40 to 0.28 to 0.38 to 0.23 in 2012. And this year, the two first quarters amounts to -0.09.)
So, for me the dilution is the real problem, systematically eating up the EPS, and, so, to the extent that market capitalization expresses the market opinion of those who are not benefiting from the dilution (i.e. insiders,) the capitalization *should* not advance -- in fact it should retreat.
There are, of course, many moving parts, but, in my opinion, the best step that ClickSoftware can take to grow the market capitalization is to stop the dilution. However, given the remarkably careful calibration of the dilution, I don't see that happening, and, so, we are stuck with excessive demands for sustained growth of the top and bottom-line -- something that ClickSoftware is having trouble with.
That is a good question, and the answer is that we don't know, since events have moved faster than the filings.
The latest filings were for the June 2013 quarter, and showed a huge drop in institutional interest (something like 50%, I think.) However, by way of reference, this was the quarter where the 10K delay and associated fraud was announced and there were was no good news whatsoever (and, also, it was the quarter where the predatory law firms started their macabre dance for clients -- a process that I think you understand quite well.)
In contrast, the current quarter has been all good news, with the restatement happening (and being minor,) the refinancing of the revolver and the term loan locking in, and the largest contract being re-established.
We have seen some volume spikes that would be indicative of institutional interest -- most notably a half million shares spike on the day after the announcement of the refinancing of the revolver, so, yes, I think that there has been an influx of institutional money in this quarter (albeit, I think, still less than the outflow in the previous quarter.)
I liked your question because it caused me to remember that all this stuff (disaster to OK) has happened over such an incredibly short period - only two quarters, which I think we tend to forget.
The new filings should be available soon, and, so, you will have your answer, for sure.
Counting down to the earnings release date for q3, it may be time for the guessing game again.
If the company:
* announces a new customer, up we go.
* announces that the Simple Mobile migration is complete, down we go.
* announces specifics about cost-reductions, up we go.
* announces no specifics about cost-reductions, down we go.
* announces less or equal earnings than those of last quarter, down we go.
* announces less revenues than those of last quarter, down we go.
* announces 15% or better earnings than those of last quarter, up we go.
* announces better revenues than those of l last quarter, up we go.
* announces a loss of one of the three new customers, down we go.
* says nothing whatsoever about the future, costs savings, and new revenues and earnings opportunities, down we go.
Mix and match at your leisure. Please feel free to add atomic combinations.
NOTSOSeriousInvestor aka. uhistory....
Not that it matters for your rant, but I don't think Zescrowman was asking me, in particular... Who knows, perhaps he was asking you -- tapping into your detailed knowledge on the matter.
You are certainly right in one thing, and that is that I did not care to answer your infantile nonsense when you posted it under the alias uhistory.
And that has not changed, I can assure you, so good luck with whatever you are doing.
For all involved, however, do try to keep your multiple aliases straight. It makes it so much easier to keep tap on you. Also, you did go through all the hassle of setting the uhistory alias up in June so you could spew on Unitek's new CEO, so it seems like a shame to not keep at it, doesn't it?
You wrote: "its [sic] facts. 600k shares were dropped twice."
Are you saying that there were two blocks of $600 thousand? If so, when was the second block? I did not see it.
Thanks. However, was the trading around September 12th, not distributed, i.e. consisting of many smallish trades?
To me the trade yesterday smells large-institutional with the one-go, take-a-hit-with-no-regrets, and the timing (after the close of the quarter,) whereas the trading around September 12th seems more like small-institutional and retail.
It could, of course, also be our resident apple grower trimming his holdings.
You wrote: "Per_a.jacobsen - how does a fund go about unwinding their position in a thinly traded small cap?? I think a smaller fund might try a lot of small trades but for soros this represents (I checked some time back) a tenth of a percent of the fund. Anyone who purchases shares has to do so with the thought for Soros this is like me taking ten bucks out of my wallet. He can blow you out without a thought. Its small potatoes to the Soros fund. Whether more funds start to sell I think will depend on guidance for the third quarter. Eventually even soros will lose patience."
Thank you for the note. I appreciate the feedback.
I think you are being a little too focused on Soros (or, more precisely, with Soros' fund (I can assure you that Soros almost for sure has never heard about Clicksoftware, except as a line item in NAV report)).
This leads me to the first point I wanted to make, and that is that the way institutional funds work, is that the money are divided up among managers. As such, there is no way to tell how important a position of CKSW is since we don't know the pedigree and allowance of the fund manager who actually made the decision to buy CKSW. Just as important, we don't know what the NAV performance is of the manager, and, so, we don't know what he or she might feel or want to do.
The second point is that the move of 600 thousand shares in my opinion clearly was pre-arranged, and, so, the only strange thing about it, is that the market followed price down (moving 600 thousand shares in one go does come with an agreed-to discount.) The actual block was never truly on the market, and, therefore, the transaction did not reflect market value and the market should have immediately stabilized. This did not happen, and I think that that is a testament to how jittery the market is about CKSW.
Finally, I just want to point out that while it is highly likely that the buyer was institutional, there is no reason to believe that the seller was *not* a retail investor. In fact, if you, as a retail investor, had followed Clicksoftware and CKSW for more than a decade (and you had tons of faith) there is a lot of ways that you could have accumulated 600 thousand shares.
I am speculating, of course, but it would make sense to me if this was a retail investor getting out (I could imaging that he or she had used the base portfolio as leverage, and had loaded significantly up on the other side of $7.50, and was facing a nasty call.)
Speculation, yes, but it does happen. When you as a retail investor has accumulated a large enough position, you can get a call from a broker for an institutional buyer, who represents a client who wants in. In most cases, if you can't foresee a merger, this is actually the best and most profit-yielding way to exit your large position, and, so, the rest is just details and mechanics.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification (God only knows how many thumbs up/thumbs down this thread will get before the day is out.)
I actually disagree with you on the execution piece. Well, to a certain extent, that is...
First, I am totally OK with the investment notion, and I like the fact that the company came out early (last year) and told the stakeholders what to expect (although, of course, it was somewhat derailed in the middle of this year.) Second, I have been in an operating role, so I am aware that there are industrywide things that comes from left field, and that you just have to react to as quickly as possible.
So, I tend to cut Clicksoftware and its management team a lot of slack on the execution side (I, however, do not cut the BoD any slack on the options, dilution, and co-CEO issues.)
What I do have a problem with on the operations side is that the company's management appear to have been surprised by the market change and the cannibalization issue. I would have expected them to be on the ball on these issues (in particular the cannibalization issue, which is an internal problem that should have been dealt with decisively.)
Moreover, I noted that someone said that the issue could be as simple as asking the question of whether or not Clicksoftware is worth 190 million dollars or less. I agree with this simplified view and, to a large extent, this value question trumps any temporary execution problems.
And, yes, to my mind, ClickSoftware is worth quite a lot more than the current market capitalization implies (and P/E be damned!,) so I find myself having to just get over the execution issues.
The panic after close was fantastic to watch, with the per share price briefly touching $5.
Although, certainly, the latest press release from the company was not positive, it was overall in line with the expectations that the company's operating results would continue to be adversely affected until sometime next year. So, no news there, I think.
What I can't easily "decode" is the following statement: "Overall the number of new on-premise customers we signed in the first nine months of 2013 also increased considerably by 62% compared to last year."
Frankly, I have been tossing and turning, thinking about this statement, so I throw it out to the general populace for comments.
Here is some input:
1. Given what we know about service/maintenance (SM) vs. license (LIC) revenue composition (80/20,) does this mean that this year's LIC are up +50% compared to last year? If so, how can the top-line advance only modestly, if at all (did the SM portion sink?)
2. Or... did the booking size of the on premises (OP) deals fall tremendously compared to last year?
3. If both the number of OP orders and the number of SaaS orders increased between 50% and a 100% compared to the last year, how could the overall revenue possibly sink?
4. With a growth in bookings of between 50% and 100% and the trailing nature of revenues (both SaaS and OP revenues trail bookings for up to a year,) is it possible to prognosticate or extrapolate on the revenues for next year (will revenues, for instance, grow between 25% and 50%?)
5. If ClickSoftware had simply (and only) announced that its net new OP business grew +50% and its net new SaaS business grew 100%, I would automatically expect the revenue number to go up dramatically -- if not immediately, then "soonish" (I would not have a problem with the "bad" net income number since this could be impacted by a range of factors.)
6. Did ClickSoftware lose large existing customers?